Walker v. Brown

Filing 8

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Signed by Judge James Donato on 9/3/15. (lrcS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/3/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
ROGER LEE WALKER,

7

Case No. 15-cv-03148-JD

Petitioner,
8
v.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

9
JERRY BROWN,

10

Re: Dkt. No. 2

Respondent.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
Petitioner, a civil detainee, has filed a habeas action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He is

13
14

currently awaiting trial to be civilly committed pursuant to California’s Sexually Violent Predators

15

Act (SVPA). See Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code 6600, et seq. Petitioner has filed a form petition that

16

seeks to stop the California Department of State Hospitals from using certain standards,

17

procedures, and assessment tools in determining if a person is a Sexually Violent Predator. He

18

also seeks to stop his commitment trial and to be released from inpatient treatment. Plaintiff is

19

currently being held in Coalinga, CA which is located in the Eastern District of California. He

20

states the underlying commitment proceeding arises from Alameda County, which is in this

21

district.
To the extent petitioner challenges the conditions of his confinement, he must file an action

22
23

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the Eastern District of California where he is currently confined.1

24

To the extent he wishes to challenge the lawfulness of his commitment he must file a petition for

25

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 after he has been committed and exhausted his claims

26

in state court. To the extent he wishes this Court to intervene in the ongoing state proceedings,

27
1

28

Petitioner has already filed a case challenging his treatment. See Walker v. Allenby, Case No.
15-cv-0198-LJO-MJS (E.D. Cal.)

1

petitioner will have an opportunity to show cause why abstention pursuant to Younger v. Harris,

2

401 U.S. 37 (1971) is not appropriate.

3

A federal court generally will not enjoin or directly intercede in ongoing state court

4

proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances. Younger, 401 U.S. at 40-41, 43-45. Federal

5

courts will abstain if the state proceeding 1) is currently pending, 2) involves an important state

6

interest, and 3) affords the petitioner an adequate opportunity to raise constitutional claims.

7

Middlesex County Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar Ass’n., 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982). For

8

abstention to be appropriate, the federal court action must enjoin the state proceeding or have the

9

practical effect of doing so by interfering in a way that Younger disapproves. Gilbertson v.
Albright, 381 F.3d 965, 977-78 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc). This principle of abstention has been

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

applied to collateral attacks on criminal convictions; federal habeas corpus does not lie, absent

12

special circumstances, to adjudicate the merits of a state criminal charge prior to a judgment of

13

conviction by a state court, Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484, 489

14

(1973), or even during the time a case is on appeal in the state courts, New Orleans Pub. Serv.,

15

Inc. v. Council of City of New Orleans, 491 U.S. 350, 369 (1989). This principle has also been

16

applied to pending state civil proceedings where important state interests are at stake. Middlesex

17

County Ethics Committee, 457 U.S. at 432; Moore v. Sims, 442 U.S. 415, 423 (1979) (pending

18

child custody proceeding); Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 592, 604 (1975) (pending nuisance

19

action).

20

SVPA proceedings involve important state interests. The importance of a state’s interest

21

may be shown by a close relationship between noncriminal proceedings to proceedings that are

22

criminal in nature. Middlesex County Ethics Comm., 457 U.S. at 432. The SVPA proceedings are

23

closely related to proceedings that are criminal in nature and involve state interests of protection of

24

the public and mental health treatment, which under California law are considered to be

25

compelling, Hubbart v. Superior Court, 19 Cal. 4th 1138, 1153 n. 20 (1999), and are the types of

26

interests categorized as legitimate and important under federal authority, Dept. of Revenue of Ky.

27

v. Davis, 553 U.S. 328, 340 (2008) (health, safety and welfare of citizens); Hill v. Colorado, 530

28

U.S. 703, 715 (2000) (traditional police power of the state to protect the health and safety of
2

1
2

citizens).
Specifically, the Younger abstention principles have been applied to SVPA proceedings.

3

See, Smith v. Plummer, 458 Fed. Appx. 642, 643 (9th Cir. Nov. 15, 2011) (unpublished); Cruz v.

4

Ahlin, 2011 WL 5290092, at *3 (C.D.Cal. Aug. 24, 2011) (unpublished) (collecting cases).

5

The form petition contains a boilerplate section why abstention is inappropriate, however

6

petitioner must describe the facts of his specific case and why this Court should intervene in light

7

of the case law cited above. Petitioner must show cause within twenty-eight days why abstention

8

is not appropriate. Failure to respond will result in dismissal of this case. The motion to proceed

9

in forma pauperis (Docket No. 2) is GRANTED.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 3, 2015

12
________________________
JAMES DONATO
United States District Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

ROGER LEE WALKER,

Case No. 15-cv-03148-JD

Plaintiff,
5
v.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

6
7

JERRY BROWN,
Defendant.

8
9
10

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S.
District Court, Northern District of California.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15

That on September 3, 2015, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by
placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by
depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery
receptacle located in the Clerk's office.

16
17
18

Roger Lee Walker ID: CO-001619-6
Coalinga State Hospital
P.O. Box 5003
Coalinga, CA 93210-5003

19
20
21

Dated: September 3, 2015

22
23

Susan Y. Soong
Clerk, United States District Court

24
25
26
27

By:________________________
LISA R. CLARK, Deputy Clerk to the
Honorable JAMES DONATO

28
4